Kurtisso

Stand-in friends are always the best!

Before you go and trade-off all your gear in a big gear swap right before your doc project, it might be worth knowing more about the setup you are currently using. Often times I find myself gear-hunting in complete lust, thinking that the only way to get different looks is different gear when really I could be spending that time trying different looks with the same gear. What are you using lens wise by the way?

Have you tried finding all the "breaking points" of your camera? at what level of underexposure or overexposure does your image fall apart? Sometimes, a touch of underexposure or overexposure can smoothen skin, and give you better skintones. If we're talking organic textures and we start going into grain, slightly underexposing and then bringing shadows/mids back up in post can introduce a slight bit of "digital grain" that depending on your camera could be quite lovely (or terrible HA). I noticed in your test video that a fair amount of the background contained blown highlights, would it be possible to lower exposure and still have the latitude to raise the underexposed areas? One of the things that film does best, is that it handles dynamic range so much better than digital. With portraits and bright highlights on a sharp, contrasty digital sensor, diffusion (like black pro-mist, stockings...) can help too with creating more of an organic feel. Organic might be a bit of an ambiguous term, but if you are looking to emulate the look more of shooting with film, there might be more of a descriptive criteria there like grain, dynamic range, highlight rolloff, motion cadence etc...

On July 2, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Mattias Burling said:

I just don't get why people care about looks. Blackmagic, Canon, Red, they all look like absolute crap. But they do their job so I couldn't care less. My only interest is in usability and image.

Yes!

Seriously though, why do most mirrorless cameras being made today still follow the form of SLR's? 

Also I would urge most people who haven't tried the D16 but seem to know a lot about it to actually try it. It is an absolute joy to use. There is nothing that can do what it does at that price point. Don't even start with bmpcc ballwashing. It's a great cam too, but they are NOT the same beast. I'm sure Mattias can attest to that, he actually has tests with both!

Also, s16 and 16mm are lovely formats. So are s35, ff35 and medium format. I wouldn't cut sushi with a hammer, but I wouldn't say a hammer is useless. Aranofsky makes some pretty cooool films no?

PS: I think super shallow depth of field needs to retire with wedding videos from 2012. Her eyes are in focus but her nose is soft, and everything is a giant piece of high shutterspeed jello... why man...

The feel of motion on the DB16 is pretty hard to beat. That true global shutter really opens doors for how you can shoot. It's incredibly liberating to shoot handheld with the DB16 and really "get in there" and be immersed in the action. Even when I was a kid I wasn't a big fan of jello.

Isn't beautiful motion whether big or small, fast or slow paramount to film? Motion picture vs. Photography?

11 hours ago, Axel said:

On the other hand, there are disadvantages too. Depending on the lens used, you will get considerably more moire than with ProRes. This is particularly true for the very sharp Sigma 18-35.

I feel like this is a debayer thing. For ProRes, it's still taking that same raw sensor data but interpreting in cam and baking it in and making it friendly for you to start. This leads me to believe that there should be a way in post to transcode the raw files in the case where you need to reduce moire/aliasing.

I don't have this camera to test it out, but this is something that I've dealt with in my Kineraw hispeed footage, where that same "orange+teal" aliasing/moire occurs. I used the kinestation software to transcode the compressed raw into formats like cineform 444 or prores 444 with really good results without turning the image to "mush".

those curved lines on the road are naaaasty at first

then a little bit of transcode loving and it's a lot better.

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I just wish the D16 cost $999 and was available in great quantity... but that in a way is not the point of it. It is a camera that has a habit of getting into a disproportionately high number of talented hands, which means they're building a really special community around it.

Exactly Andrew! As an outsider looking in (who routinely is scouting ebay for someone to let go of their D16 for cheap), I can't help but feel like there is something really special going on with that entire eco-system. A camera maker that is still releasing free firmware updates and paid upgrades for the hardware (2TB mod) compared to other companies that don't give a crap and routinely screw over their user-base is so incredibly refreshing. I believe that the recent additions of colour gamuts and gammas etc... were the result of DB bringing in a D16 user that was also a colourist into the shop. How freaking cool is that.

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Damn I miss those high end CCD sensors... magic.

F35, M8, Kodak (Digital Bolex) was probably the shortest lived golden era of digital there ever was!

I hope that era isn't over! Beautiful colour and natural motion affect an audience's emotions more than resolution and high frame rates ever will. Maybe QuantumFilm will pick up where CCD leaves off. 

YUP. I support an organized/categorized subforum for gear sales as long as we can keep it from getting out of control. Into it.

On May 14, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Mattias Burling said:

It looks just fine and will in the future as well.

Yeap! Future-proof is an interesting concept. The Godfather was filmed on "old" technology. I will watch that 40 years from now.

Actually, shooting analog film is probably your best bet for future proof. The film scanning tech keeps getting better, you can scan super 8 into 4k raw now! :D

Yeah! It never crossed my mind that individual colour channels would be clipped but that totally makes sense! 

5 hours ago, Cinegain said:

Wouldn't people just buy the Terra 6 or 5K for less and get some add-ons themselves? I think that should come out around that price or even less for something new or what am I missing here?

Compressed .krw raw is not uncompressed raw. I don't have a Terra 6k for sale.

Terra 6k is the most comparable. $9000 without EF - kinemount and  kineEnhancer. Add in the proper media storage. Are you sure the price is less? (it's not...)

 If you tally up all the things I am including using the ole innnnnernet I think you will find that number to be more than what I am asking for my virtually brand new wares. And you know, I never said I wasn't open to hearing out an offer.

Cheers.

On May 11, 2016 at 11:46 AM, SR said:

Ursa would be a no-go for me, given its high frequency of negative reviews from users. So it'll have to be Red. But if it were really up to me, I'd wait a month for the Kinefinity Terra.

I've used the Ursa mini and I was not impressed. I like the Red One image more than the Scarlet. The Scarlet package will definitely need more storage. Kinefinity makes some rockin cams.The Terra 5k sounds pretty darn great in concept and specs if you're willing to wait and see. Could be worth the wait!

I'm going to shamelessly/shamefully self-promote now. 

Buuuuut if you don't want to wait, my KineMAX 6K is for sale. It rocks. I don't know if 6K raw and 100 fps @4K raw will be good enough in 7 years because who knows, maybe we'll just plug our brains into computers for infiniteK resolution and time-shifting abilities for infiniteFPS slowmo. 

In case anyone here is interested, I am selling my KineMAX 6K, packaged with some essentials:

15 hours ago, Ed_David said:

CCD technology is definitely quite interesting, but I wish the camera was able to do raw as well.  Raw would have let me use more than slog1, to take advantage of its beautiful sensor.  This is the beauty of the digital bolex and ikonscope cameras - that combination I find perfect.

I am pretty excited for whatever Digital Bolex comes up with next (whenever that happens). I really hope that CCD has even more to give, or that they explore something like QuantumFilm sensors.

On May 2, 2016 at 11:06 PM, squig said:

Purple fringing. Yucky.  http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/970-tamron35f18vc?start=1

I'm getting the Sigma

On May 3, 2016 at 5:22 PM, M Carter said:

"Game changing" …mmm, drama! Test reports are so-so, with fringing and onion bokeh.

I bought my first Sigma lens in 1995 or so, a 28-70 2.8 AF zoom that was just OK. They've certainly come a long way, and as far as Tamron goes, it's good to see aftermarket glass with good motors and VR or IS. 

But Sigma cold be said to have changed the game as far as lens technology and price/value, showing that Nikon/Canon and the classic Euro shops are no longer the only game in town for IQ, and doing it for a reasonable price. Which leads the question: is Nikon and Canon glass overpriced? Hard to say - much of it is pretty damn expensive, but many of their lenses are best-in-class. I have several Nikkors that I've used for two decades, stills and now video, and they're tremendously good lenses, some approaching their 30th birthdays. But Nikon's pricing feels more ridiculous every year.

Game changing to me is going to be no-compromise on features and IQ, at 30 - 50% less than the big guys. I don't own any Samsung S zooms, but they're very highly regarded and as far as I know, they did it from scratch (and overnight compared to Sigma & Tamron). Apparently it can be done.

After previously owning the 24-70...

These are a no-go for me.

9 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

I use a Tiffen Digital Diffusion FX filter on every 4K shoot that I do. Sometimes Pro Mist if it's on female talent or a beauty(ish) shoot.

I've done tests with the filter vs post diffusion and there's definitely a difference. I haven't tried the Tiffen version above though. Maybe it's great.

I use the 1/4 black pro mist to take the edge off sometimes. I like what it does for the highlights with rolloff and blooms. I got an 82mm one for 17.50 used  

17 hours ago, IronFilm said:

How about a Kinefinity KineMINI 4K? A battle tested one loaded with all the options is available now for a mere US$3.5K!! :-o 

That is a downright insane deal for so much camera! It has the option of interchangeable mounts, raw 4K, slow motion, uses cheap standard off the shelf SSDs, can use focal reducers to get that VistaVision / Full Frame look. 

Could be perfect for a RED shop where the productions doesn't have the budget to use their RED.

1 hour ago, silvertonesx24 said:

This. I would say if you love working with great raw images than either 5D3/2 with magic lantern or a used Kinemini 4k is the clear choice. More so the 5d as with the Kinemini you will need a D-tap power source and a monitor.

Battle tested KineMINI is such a great deal right now. Kinefinity even sells kinebatts and dual chargers, pretty cheap 130watt battery sources in gold mount or v-lock. These batteries or chargers aren't the "super intelligent" antons but they also don't cost a kidney. I use them and will keep monitoring to see how they last over time. The Kine's are built pretty solid too, I don't use a cage for mine.

I use the Samsung 850 Pro's for ssd. They work like a charm. I swap between the kineEnhancer for ~full frame (1.1x) and regular (s35) EF mounts and use a nikon to EF adapter for my nikkors and m42 to EF for my soviets. 

The cinema DNG's that come out of this cam are pretty darn fun to grade. Here's one of the .dng from a project I shot with the KineMINI earlier this year: PRJ-0001-060-A1-6274-0000199.dng Move it around in lightroom or whatever you tinker with. Didn't get much fire reflection from the torch off of the glasses from that angle so didn't end up using it.

Heyo. If your final delivery is 1080p and you're finding the a7s ii on the more expensive side, why not consider the a7s i instead? If you're looking for crop room and therefore want 4k acquisition, you might not be happy with the a7s ii's internal 8-bit 4:2:0. The only way to get 4k 8-bit 4:2:2 is hdmi out to external recorder, which is the same as the a7s i. But at the end of the day, 8-bit just might not be the most fun to work with if you're coming from r3d.

Is the Digital Bolex d16 in MFT mount with a speedbooster outside of the possible budget? You would get absolutely gorgeous colour, cinema dng raw files and global shutter and xlr ins for "run and gun dslr" style. Probably the most beautiful 1080p/2k in a smaller package. 

4 hours ago, Jimmy said:

I traded my 5D3 for an A7s and have hated it since day one... Everyone is different though. As soon as I can shoot 1080/60p raw on a Canon, I will move back.

I did the same Jimmy, I really enjoyed the a7s though and did some cool projects. Ended up trading that in to get a Kine, which I plan to use for as many years as I can.

Beautiful colour and raw, I don't see myself going back to not having those.

5 hours ago, Nick Hughes said:

Use it all the time, it's so incredibly helpful for doc-style work where you can't always choose your lighting. 

This.

If I don't have to use it I won't. But sometimes, the noise is just gnarly. Last month I was guerilla-style shooting handheld follow sequences on thai trains on the KineMAX 6k so I had to pop it into HiSpeed mode to reduce rolling shutter artifacts. The train was pretty dim at that point so exposure was far from optimal, and that mode EATS light. Our old friend vertical strips of fixed-pattern noise decided to make an appearance so NeatVideo had to come to the rescue. It's a battle between wax figures and undesirable noise (I like film grain and some cameras produce beautiful digital noise too) so there's always a balance.  I do really find the noise from cinemaDNG to be quite beautiful generally!

9 hours ago, richg101 said:

CCD tech reached its peak 5-10 years ago and even now my Dalsa 56mpx sensor in my leaf aptus 10-ii (released in 2008) delivers an image that makes my a7rii cry.  Dynamic range is around 3 stops less than the a7rii but it's the 16bit colour, and refinement of overall image that has the edge on the dalsa sensor.  not to mention how good Phase One's 'Capture One' software is at processing the 16bit raw files out of the sensor.  Main reason for lack of live view is due to the number of pixels they're dealing with, and the prehistoric processing (when compared to the processing within an a7rii or a dual digic7 canon camera) - the buffer on even the fastest mf backs only permits around 1 frame per second for 50mpx-80mpx sensors.  I think this is the main reason for lack of live view.  

Yeap! I recently started shooting on the KineMAX 6k and really quite like the colour I can get out of it, but I think I would sacrifice 2-3k (so down to 4k or 3k raw), bring it down to 13 stops of dynamic range (vs. 14-16),  and lose any frame rates over 75fps in order to get 16bit colour and global shutter. Hahaha at the same price of course... probably asking for too much again.

Anyway, excited to see how that Oliviascope 1.5x turns out, it's probably more interesting than the H6D! 

It seems that all the top end medium format cams that don't shoot video use CCD sensors instead of CMOS. Is there a reason outside of cost or processing power for why not? CCD would allow for global shutter no? Or am I asking for too much again...

Also, anyone know anything about medium format to full frame focal reducers? @richg101?

15 hours ago, jax_rox said:

Imagine the resolution on the film grain

Seriously, I love film and will defend it as much as possible... But you can't say 35mm is 4-6k, S16 is 2-4K and S8mm is HD....

And then turn around and say you can get 4K out of Super 8.

With the new 8k cams coming out, Kodak will soon be saying that 35mm gives you 10k!

I'll concede that resolution on film doesn't really work the same way as a digital sensor, but you'll really just be getting finer detail on the grain - which sure, can give you the appearance of extra resolution..

Totally, that film grain will look absolutely delicious!

Yeah, I don't know if I subscribe to the "35mm is 4-6k, S16 is 2-4K and S8mm is HD" or that you can get "4k out of Super 8". From the little that I understand and can remember from photo class about analog film (so please correct me if I'm totally wrong), but I believe the "resolution" is happening at a molecular level? And because of that, technically the resolution is denser than our camera sensor pixel array, unless we can create pixels that are even smaller! However, these tiny chemical reactions do not always behave in a "clean, individual molecule" kind of way, and have chain reactions based on proximity so you get "less pixel-sharp" images in certain areas like bright skintones which are softened...maybe highlight blooms too? The things we tend to like from film and try to emulate with digital cinema.

So I assume that on the 4k scan of super 8 film, it picks up some details "in 4k" and some are lost in a lower resolution. I also assume sharpness of your glass makes a difference too in creating that sharpness on the film itself..  Cool thing too, if the scanners keep getting better, it's possible that your film's resolution can get better too!

I realize I've veered away a bit from the OP's topic, so to bring it back... Kodak is launching the new camera with the model of "You buy it, shoot it, ship it. We process it, scan it, deliver it". Seems like you won't have to hunt down high quality scanners. Might be an option for narrative that won't blow the budget. Then again, Kodak might charge a $$$hit ton for the round trip. I'm excited to see though! :D

4 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

I love the Coney Island video above...but i'll raise you that Ikonoskop video, with this one - made by one of the guys from Daft Punk, just...

 

mmmmm tasty diffusion... nice blooming highlights...Now that's a battle! Tomas Bangaltar vs Ice Cream Coney.

On another side of things, the super 8 revival is looking really interesting with the Logmar and Kodak (coming in 2016 supposedly) cyborgs! It seems that the film scanning technology is getting really good and affordable.

Kodak is claiming they will provide 4k or 5k resolution for super8 scans when you use their film stock!

A used Ikonoskop, used Digital Bolex D16, Battle-Tested KineMINI or @Ed_David's F35? Those F3's look great too. Lots of great options out there... I've only used the KineMINI of all those but it appears that they all provide a pretty darn excellent image, have good colors and have some sort of way of dealing with rolling shutter artifacts (all Global shutter I believe except for the KineMINI which has hiSpeed mode).

I find the entire Canon Cinema eos line to provide little bang for your buck outside of renting it out and recouping your sunk cost. For me personally, I have no real interest in renting out my gear, so that is not part of my business model. I shoot on what I want to shoot on. I understand that won't be the case for everyone. 

Man, it's easy to get stuck in camera-lust. Audio, lenses, filters, lighting, good story and talent etc... all very important. Outside of the cams, I have had good results with my Rode NTG4+, Old cheapo Nikkor primes, Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4, Leica achromatic close-ups (1-4) and A BOUNCE/diffuser. Seriously. The bounce is probably the most underrated and cheapest lighting tool I have encountered. Lots of small little tools to make digital cinema on a budget.

59 minutes ago, richg101 said:

The plan was a camera and lens setup with loads of options as far as focal reducers, behind the lens filters etc - all the exciting stuff the sub-pl system permits!   

Focal reducer for m4/3 crop mode? The KineEnhancer only gets super35 to almost full frame (1.1 I believe)

Built in ND mount adaptor?

Oval bokeh drop ins for mount adapter to kinemount like the DSO Trump system? 

:D

Long time lurker, first time poster. I've learned quite a bit about things like anamorphics on these forums, thanks for all the sharing! Also a lot about how to become obsessed with gear porn and bicker about silly things. HA.

I have a KineMAX 6k and it is bloody awesome. Instead of trusting someone else's abilities (or lack of abilities) to test out a camera for me and just "believe" that what's true for their experience is true for mine... I rented a KineMINI 4k (http://creativecamerarentals.com/) and gave it a spin. That experience was absolutely wonderful, coming from someone that shot a7s + shogun, fs7, fs700, 5D3, c300, c100, Ursa Mini just prior to it. It's not a perfect camera, but no camera is. Even Alexa's have problems, like being outside my price-range!  

I could rave so hard about this cam, but I would just be listing out the spec-sheet and confirming each point. Probably better to see some films shot on it and then see if you can rent/borrow one.

Customer support has been good. Emails and shipping back and forth, pretty standard for dealing with warranty stuff and the likes. They actually update firmware too, offer trade-ins and deliver on their promises to their customers. There's a really helpful community on Facebook for Kinefinity users too, even with a couple Kine reps on there. Oh and in case you had any misconceptions about language, you don't have to learn Mandarin or Cantonese, communication can be done in English (smoother by email of course).

To the ProRes point, meh. It should be added to the existing cams in a firmware update too. Kinefinity has delivered on everything so far. If your client wants ProRes files, you can transcode the files no? Pretty easy to click a few buttons and let it run. If it's for yourself, you can probably quite easily work it into your workflow. If someone else is editing, I ship them ProRes proxies, then I grade the KRW's in Scratch. I switched over from Resolve, it wasn't as arduous as it can appear. Scratch seems to have much better 4k playback on my 2012 crapbook pro.